the ark of the covenant in joshua

21 Pages·2013·0.82 MB·English

THE ARK OF THE COVENANT IN JOSHUA:
A PROBE INTO THE HISTORY
OF A TRADITION
by
GEORGE W. COATS
Lexington Theological Seminary, Lexington, KY 40508
In the priestly source of the Pentateuch, the ark of the covenant is the
product of Moses in obedience to God's command, a symbol of God's
presence among his people in the wilderness. In Exod 25: 10-22, in a
speech from the Lord to Moses, God describes in detail the construction
of the ark (cf. also Exod 35: 12; 37: 1-5). Indeed, there is some evidence
that the ark functioned as a symbol of God's leadership for his people
through the wilderness (Num 10:33).
In the older sources of the Pentateuch, however, the connection be
tween the ark and Moses is not strong. The principal symbol of God's
leadership through the wilderness is the pillar of fire and cloud (so,
Exod 13:21-22). The principal symbol of Mosaic leadership is the rod of
God (ma{!eh hii0eli5hlm: see Exod 17:9), the staff that becomes a serpent
before the Pharaoh, the bronze serpent that brings healing to Moses'
people who face the fiery serpents in the wilderness. In the Song of the
Ark, Num 10:35, Moses pronounces the ritual formula for the move
ment of the ark: "Arise, 0 Lord, and let your enemies be scattered, and
let them that hate you flee before you." The parallel formula in v. 36
marks the end of the movement for the day: "Return, 0 Lord, to the ten
thousand thousands of Israel." The formulas belong to ancient tradition
about the movement of the ark. They show the ark in a procession,
symbolizing the presence of God with the people.
In v. 35, Moses uses the formula to effect departure from a camp in
the wilderness. And in v. 36, he uses the parallel formula to effect rest at
a new camp. But the connection between the ark formulas and Moses is
secondary. 1 Thus, the question for this probe into the history of the
I. Noth (1972, pp. 205-206): "For weighty reasons, we must call seriously in doubt the
relationship between the ark and both Moses and the religion of Sinai." Others defend the
Mosaic origin of the ark. See Fretheim (1968, p. IO) and Rowley (1967, p. 54).
137
138 GEORGE W. COATS
tradition can be formulated: Where does the ark of the covenant belong
in the history of Israel's early traditions? What function does it perform
in Israel's memory of her early history? The question can be sharpened:
Given the division of the Pentateuch into structural units, namely the
promise to the fathers, the exodus from oppression in Egypt, the guid
ance and aid for the people in the wilderness, and the gift of the land
(Coats, 1983, pp. 13-26), where does the ark belong? In order to make a
contribution to this broad question in the history of Israel's early tradi
tions, this essay will probe the ark traditions in the book of Joshua.
Moreover, the probe begins from an observation by Boling (1982, p. 160):
"The ark is inseparable from the conquest." In what manner is the ark
embedded in the conquest theme of traditions? What are the conse
quences of this observation for understanding the traditions about Moses
and Joshua?
I
Joshua 3:1-5:1
The verses in this pericope do not narrate a story. They do not consti
tute a simple report of an event. This account of Israel's crossing the
Jordan depicts a cultic event, the entry of Israel into the land of Canaan
effected by execution of a ritual (Wilcoxen, 1968, pp. 43-70). Boling
makes the same point: "The language and organization of chaps. 3-6 is
[sic] shaped to a great extent by a dramatization, a 'liturgical conquest'.
In other words, the ancient historians here used what we would call
secondary cultic sources to describe primary historico-theological events"
(l 982, p. 158). The structure of the pericope comprises a series of
speeches, each designed to direct the progress of the event. V. l is an
itinerary formula that connects the pericope with the last stage of the
wilderness theme, Num 25: I. Moreover, the location establishes unity in
the larger structure of Joshua by connecting this pericope with Josh 2: l.
The point of departure for the ritual event is Shittim, the place of
encampment noted in both Num 25:1 and Josh 2:1. The new place of
encampment established by this formula is the Jordan. The people are
poised for the ritual event. The first speech in the pericope appears in
vv. 2-4. The leaders of the people instruct the people about their par
ticipation in the ritual. The points of importance for the ark tradition
apparent in this speech are: I) the ark is to be carried by the Levites;
and 2) the ark leads the procession, with the people following. Indeed,
the speech notes that the people must depend on the ark for leadership.
Without it, they would not know the way: " ... so that you may know
THE ARK OF THE COVENANT IN JOSHUA 139
the way (hadderek) you shall go." The remaining parts of the speech
specify the position of the ark in the procession. "Do not come near it."
The next speeches in the series introduce Joshua into the pericope.
Joshua first dictates the preparation of the people for the event. "Sanc
tify yourselves .... "And this speech assumes contact between the people
and the holy, represented for the people by the ark. Then Joshua insti
tutes the procession. Joshua's command initiates the event. "Joshua said
to the priests: 'Take up the ark of the covenant, and pass on before the
people'." The ritual stipulates that the ark is to be carried by the Levites.
To some extent, the ark belongs to the Levites (Deut 10:8; 31 :9, 25, 26; 2
Sam 15:24, 25, 29. See also Num 3:31). The tradition history problem
emerges just at this point. Is the ark simply a Levitical tradition inserted
into the early traditions at convenient places? Or does it have roots
beyond the Levitical tradition? Cody, for example, suggests that the
picture of the Levites as the carriers of the ark is Deuteronomistic mate
rial in Joshua (1969, p. 139). But the critical item in this pericope is that
even with the Levitical figures to carry the ark, Joshua initiates the
process. The ark moves at the head of the people toward the Jordan, not
because the Levites decided that that point of the ritual demanded the
move. The ark moves at Joshua's command.
Moreover, the movement of the ark as the leader of the people leads
to a speech from the Lord to Joshua. The movement will exalt Joshua
before Israel. The movement of the ark will establish Joshua's authority
before Israel. And that authority is compared directly to the authority
Moses held before Israel. It should be noted that the comparison with
Moses does not rest on Joshua's command of the ark. It rests on a more
ambiguous statement about God's presence with Moses. "This day I
shall begin to exalt you in the eyes of all of Israel, so that they may
know that just as I was with Moses, I shall be with you." In Exod
3: 12-14, God secures Moses' authority for carrying out the commission
to redeem the people from their slavery with a promise for divine pres
ence in the process. In the Joshua text, the power of the comparison
rests with the promise for presence: "As I was with Moses, so I will be
with you."
The next line in the Lord's speech to Joshua sets out the details for
Joshua's use of the ark to effect the event of the crossing. The ark plus
the Levites who carry it become the symbols of Joshua's exaltation
before God. In the same way, the Moses scene introduces a symbol of
Mosaic power. Moses responds to the Lord's promise for presence by a
self-abasement: "They will not believe me or listen to my voice ... " And
in order to meet that crisis, the Lord's speech makes Moses' rod (ma{!eh)
140 GEORGE W. COATS
a symbol of his power. When Moses throws the rod on the ground, it
becomes a serpent (niil}iis). When Joshua directs the Levites to move
into the river with the ark, the way in the river opens. The ark functions
in the Joshua tradition in a manner that is analogous to the rod for the
Moses tradition. Joshua's initiative with the ark matches Moses' initia
tive with the rod.
But just as the rod in the hands of Moses has a double role to play,
the symbol of Moses' exaltation and, as the rod of God, the symbol of
God's presence to effect the delivery of the people, so the ark has a
double role to play. The Lord's speech to Joshua sets the priests and the
ark on the edge of the river. The next speech places the priests with the
ark in the river. Joshua then delivers the instructions to the people. The
first Joshua speech, v. 9, is a call to attention. The second is an elaborate
statement of theology. In the form of a demonstration of evidence lead
ing to a particular conclusion, the "knowledge formula" in v. 10 shows
that the ark's crossing the Jordan proves that the "living God" ( 0el l}ay)
is in the process of giving the land to the people. Indeed, the summary
statement defining the enemies to be driven from the land is intended to
be inclusive: "The Canaanites, the Hittites, the Hivites, the Perizzites,
the Girgashites, the Amorites, and the Jebusites." And again in v. 11, an
epithet for the ark points to the inclusive extent of the conquest. "The
ark of the covenant of the Lord of all the land is passing over the Jordan
before you."
The speech then specifies the character of the event. It is an event that
will occur when the ritual is properly conducted. There is no battle.
There are no swords flashing. The event occurs when the ritual proclaims
its word, ex opere operato. In v. 12, Joshua tells the people to choose
twelve men, one from each tribe, to participate in the procession. When
the feet of the priests carrying the ark touch the waters of the Jordan,
"then the waters of the Jordan shall be cut off, the waters coming down
from above. And they shall stand up in one heap (ned)."
Vv. 14-17 then describe the proper execution of the ritual. Again, it is
important to note that the narrative does not appear in the form of a
story. The report develops no plot. Rather, the narrative in these verses
simply reports that the qualifications in the ritual were met. When the
priests with the ark touched the water of the Jordan, water that was
more extensive than usual since the Jordan was at flood stage, the
water stopped. Indeed, it rose in a heap (ned-0el}iid). Moreover, v. 17
emphasizes that the people passed over the Jordan on dry ground
(bel}iiriibiih). The ark remained in the middle of the river on dry ground.
And the process facilitated the passage of Israel through the river on dry
THE ARK OF THE COVENANT IN JOSHUA 141
ground. The concluding statement highlights the total scope of the event:
" ... until all the nation (haggoi) finished passing over (lacabOr) the
Jordan."2
One might conclude just here that the ark belongs to the Levites, its
position in the ritual secured by the priestly status of the caretakers. The
Levites carry the ark. To some extent, one must recognize the necessary
connections between the ark tradition and the Levitical traditions in the
book of Joshua. But Joshua manipulates the Levites and the ark as a
single instrument. The procession across the Jordan with the Levites
carrying the ark belongs to Joshua in the same manner that the rod
belongs to Moses. But in this case, the manipulation of the symbol takes
on the character of ritual with procession and priests rather than the
character of a single act from Israel's lone hero.3
In Joshua 4, the character of the event as ritual emerges with even
sharper focus. To mark the occasion, the conclusion of the Jordan cross
ing, the Lord instructs Joshua to create a place to remember the event.
Joshua is to instruct the representatives from the tribes to take twelve
stones from the midst of the river and set them up at the place where
Israel spends the first night in the land. The stones are not to be selected
at random. Rather, they are to come from the place in the midst of the
river where the feet of the priests stand. The point is clear: The place
where the priests stood is the place in the river where the ark was, the
place where Joshua had put the priests. And now Joshua instructs the
twelve to bring stones from the river in order to create a sanctuary. The
sanctuary would be the place to commemorate entry into the land. The
speech in vv. 5-7 defines the character of the sanctuary as a memorial.
But the cultic character of the event returns to center stage with a
catechism (Soggin, 1960). In 4:6, the purpose of the stones is defined:
" ... in order that this may be a sign in your midst. When your sons ask
on the next day saying, 'What do these stones mean to you?' then you
shall say to them: 'The waters of the Jordan were cut off before the ark
of the covenant of the Lord; when it passed over the Jordan, the waters
of the Jordan were cut off. These stones shall be a memorial for the
2. So Noth ( 1953, p. 33). Noth argues: "Auf der anderen Seite ware die Gegenwart der
Lade an sich nicht unbedingt notwendig; das Jordanwunder hatte ebenso ohne sie erzahlt
werden kiinnen, wie das in 4 23 mit ihm verglichene Schilfmeerwunder ohne sie erzahlt
wird." Yet, this point assumes the dependency of the Jordan tradition on the tradition
about crossing the Sea. If the direction of influence is the opposite, the Jordan crossing
tradition would show not only its own distinctive shapes but also the distinctive role of the
ark. In that light, the parallel between the ark of Joshua and the rod of Moses emerges.
3. For a definition of the Moses narratives as heroic saga, see Coats (1985, pp. 33-44).
142 GEORGE W. COATS
Israelites forever'." V. 8 reports that the instructions for constructing the
memorial at the first camp in the land were carried out. V. 9 then notes
that Joshua set up the stones in the middle of the Jordan, at the place
where the priests stood with the ark while the people passed over. And
the etiological formula "to this day" gives authority to some current
object in the river. Perhaps two traditions come together there. One
would undergird a memorial near the river, perhaps at Gilgal. The other
would suggest a memorial in the river. But in any case, the ritual event is
memorialized by construction of a specific place. And the catechism
secures the memorial in the process of tradition.
The conclusion to the ritual begins in vv. IOb-11: "The people passed
over in haste [cf. Exod 12:33]. And when all the people finished passing
over, the ark of the Lord and the priests passed over before the people."
Vv. 12-13 incorporate the subthemes about the Reubenites, the Gadites,
and the half-tribe of Manasseh. Then v. 14 makes the conclusion explicit.
With the crossing of the Jordan, Joshua stands exalted in the eyes of
Israel. The crossing under the leadership of the ark with the priests
(v. 11) establishes the authority of Joshua. And that authority matches
the authority of Moses. Vv. 7-8 make that point explicit in anticipation
of the event: "The Lord said to Joshua: 'This day I will begin to exalt
you (gaddelkii) in the eyes of all Israel, that they may know that as I was
with Moses, so I will be with you ( )ehyeh cimmiik)'." Vv. 15-17 then
report the movement of the ark from the river and the return of the
waters of the Jordan to their previous position.
The pericope comes to a conclusion with the summary narration in
4:19-5:1. Vv. 19-20 report that the crossing occurred, the date, and the
site for the camp on the side of the Jordan in the land now given to
Israel by God. The site, Gilgal, is the location for the twelve stones taken
from the Jordan and thus the location for celebration of the ritual
crossing. Moreover, the catechism is repeated. Vv. 21-22 carry the
question/ answer scheme and point to the purpose of the celebration.
Comparison with the scheme in v. 6 shows one significant point. Inv. 6,
the meaning of the stones lies in the crossing effected by the ark that cut
off the waters. Inv. 22, there is no reference to the ark. The response is
rather focused on the "dry ground" (bayyabbiisiih). And the comparison
with the "dry ground" crossing at the Sea is explicit: "just as the Lord
your God did at the Sea of Reeds which he dried up before us until we
crossed."
One should note that the noun for "dry ground" here, yabbiisiih, is
not the same one as the word for "dry ground" in v. 17, /:ziiriibiih. One
might suggest that the entry of yabbiisiih at a point in the text that
THE ARK OF THE COVENANT IN JOSHUA 143
makes an explicit reference to the Sea tradition shows influence on the
Jordan crossing narrative from the vocabulary patterns of a complex
that is traditio-historically prior. Could one not argue that the Jordan
crossing has its own distinctive diction in l}ii.rii.bii.h? The noun, yabbii.sii.h,
in the tradition about the Jordan crossing would then suggest shaping
here from the Sea tradition. Yet, the Sea tradition uses both nouns to
describe the result of the parted waters. In Exod 14:21, the noun is
l}ii.rii.bii.h, while in v. 22 the noun is yabbii.sii.h.
It would be helpful at just this point to pursue the comparison with
the crossing at the Sea. What precisely is the relationship between the
account of the Reed Sea crossing and the account of the Jordan crossing?
Noth (1953, p. 33) suggested that the description of the Jordan crossing
has been shaped by the description of the Sea crossing. Clearly some
kind of parallel exists (so, Ps 114:5). But I have suggested that the
narrative about the Jordan crossing is primary (Coats, 1969). The lan
guage that describes the Sea crossing derives from the specific diction of
the Jordan ritual. The older Sea tradition has nothing about a crossing.
Whether the Jordan description is primary or dependent on the Sea
tradition, a comparison of the two may nonetheless illustrate the role of
the ark in the Joshua story.
In Exod 14, the crossing occurs under pressure. Moses and the Israel
ites sit in a trap created by the Sea in front and the Egyptians at the
rear. In the Joshua text, the pressure is different. No enemy pursues
Israel to the brink of the water. But pressure is nonetheless present.
Israel sits poised at the boundary of the land. The entire tradition points
to entry and possession of the land. But the river represents a natural
barrier. The critical question for the people, not only for the people of
Joshua, but for the people of each generation who celebrate the event in
the ritual crossing, must be: "How do we enter the land?"
For Moses, God's instructions call for use of the instrument that
becomes the symbol of Mosaic leadership: "Why do you cry to me? Tell
the people of Israel to go forward. Lift up your rod and stretch out your
hand over the sea and divide it, so that the people of Israel may go
on dry ground (hayyabbasii.h) through the sea" (Exod 14:15-16). For
Joshua, God's instructions call for use of the instrument that becomes
the symbol of his leadership. In 3:2, the leaders of the people address
their audience with instructions for following the ark as it would be
carried by the Levites. 4 And the specific order for the march is defined
4. Cody ( 1969, p. 139) suggests that the picture of the Levites as the carriers of the ark
is Deuteronomistic material in Joshua.
144 GEORGE W. COATS
(v. 3). But the active process itself is controlled by Joshua. Joshua
initiates the event as well as the ritual preparation for the event. So, v. 5:
"Joshua said to the people: 'Sanctify yourselves, for tomorrow the Lord
will do wonders among you'." And v. 6: "Joshua said to the priests:
'Take up the ark of the covenant and pass over before the people'." The
event is still ritualized. And as a part of the ritual, the Levites carry the
ark. But in the tradition, the event occurs at Joshua's command.
Moreover, in v. 7, the Lord addresses Joshua: "This day I will begin
to exalt you in the sight of all Israel. ... " And the result places Joshua
on the same level with Moses: " ... that they may know that as I was
with Moses, so I will be with you." God's presence authorizes Moses'
leadership in the Exodus (so, Exod 3:12). His presence now authorizes
Joshua's leadership in the entry into the land. The result of that author
ity affirmed by the promise to Joshua for divine presence is a commis
sion to Joshua to command the ark. So, v. 8: "You shall command the
priests who bear the ark of the covenant." And the result of Joshua's act
appears in v. 17: "While all Israel was passing over on dry ground
(bel:zariibiih), the priests who carried the ark of the covenant of the Lord
were standing on dry ground (bel:ziirabiih)in the midst of the Jordan."
That divine command to effect the crossing by commanding the ark is
like the divine command to Moses to effect the crossing of the sea by
wielding the rod. In Exod 14:15: "The Lord said to Moses ... , 'Lift up
your rod and stretch out your hand over the sea and divide it, that
the people of Israel may go on dry ground (bayyabbasah) through the
sea'." The ark plays no role in the crossing of the sea. The rod plays no
role in the crossing of the Jordan. But both instruments function in the
same way for their respective traditions, the means by which the hero of
the tradition effects the crossing. It would seem to me to be clear,
moreover, that in the history of the tradition, the crossing theme belongs
to the entry into the land, the leitmotif for the conquest. The verb for
crossing, ciibar, is a leitmotif that signifies crossing the Jordan into the
land. The basic datum in the tradition would appear to be, therefore, the
Jordan crossing with the ark as the symbol of Joshua's (or the Lord's)
leadership. And that would have been a ritual to be repeated at Gilgal. If
both the sea and the river traditions were celebrated at Gilgal, the pri
mary celebration would have been the river crossing, the entry into the
land, the conquest.5 And the hero would have been Joshua, the ark of
the covenant the symbol of his leadership.
5. So, Noth (1953, p. 33): "Wohl mag die Oberlieferung vom Schilfmeerwunder die
Entstehung der Erzahlung vom Jordanwunder beeinflusst haben." Noth contends that the
THE ARK OF THE COVENANT IN JOSHUA 145
The force of this conclusion would be substantiated by the catechetical
formula in vv. 22-24.6 It is the Jordan crossing that serves as proof that
the hand of the Lord is mighty (v. 24). Moreover, 5: I observes that the
Jordan crossing provokes fear for the Canaanite kings. Indeed, the Jor
dan crossing functions as the evidence for the fear, and the terms for
fear are characteristic for conquest traditions: "Their heart melted and
there was no longer any spirit in them because of the people of Israel."
This exploration of the first pericope in Joshua relevant for a tradi
tion history probe into the ark narratives suggests three statements as a
working hypothesis: 1) The ark functions specifically as the symbol of
God's presence in the conquest. It cannot therefore be a Mosaic tradi
tion since the tradition history holds Moses away from conquest stories
(Coats, I 976). 2) The ark appears to function in the conquest stories as
an object representing God's presence, effected by a cultic procession.
Ritual is central in the display of this object. But the ritual does not
necessitate a conclusion that the ark is a late element in the history of
the tradition, the result of the ritualizing of the event. It is a primary and
necessary part of the Joshua tradition, just as the rod of God is primary
and necessary for the Moses tradition. 3) The ark represents not only
God's presence in the procession or the conquest, but also Joshua's
leadership. Just as the rod of God in the Moses traditions represents
Mosaic leadership and at the same time is identified as the rod of God,
so also the ark of the covenant is both a symbol of Joshua's leadership
and a visible representation of God's presence in the conquest.
Joshua 6:1-27
The context for the pericope in Joshua 6 is critical. Josh 5: I 3-I 5 sets
the stage for the tradition about Joshua's battle with Jericho. The little
fragment in these verses also suggests a comparison between Joshua and
Moses. V. 13 sets the stage by placing Joshua at Jericho. The battle is
imminent. But at this point, Joshua is confronted by a mysterious man
with a drawn sword in his hand. The war setting is thus critical and
provides a functional context for Joshua 6.
thesis from Kraus (1951, p. 181) runs into problems. Kraus suggested that the crossing
event was celebrated annually at Gilgal. That event set the crossing at the sea and the
crossing at the river together, celebrated annually at Gilgal. See also Kraus (1965, p. 156)
and Albright ( 1968, p. 45).
6. Soggin (1972, p. 64) notes that two parallel versions of the tradition about the twelve
stones appear in this text. One reports that the stones were taken to Gilgal; the other notes
that the stones were set up in the river at the point where the priests passed with the ark.
146 GEORGE W. COATS
But the fragment continues. Joshua questions the visitor: "Are you for
us, or for our enemies?" When the man identifies himself as the com
mander of the Lord's army, Joshua responds as if to a theophany. He
falls on his face and worships. The mysterious man then orders Joshua
to remove his shoe since the place for this apparent theophany is holy.
Joshua obeys, and the fragment comes to an end.
The comparison with Moses is suggested by the response of the leader
when the leader observes the presence of God. In the Moses tradition,
Moses the shepherd sees a burning bush. But the bush is not consumed
by the fire. The object of the vision, for Moses the burning bush and for
Joshua the man with a drawn sword, is only the means for attracting the
hero's attention. It is not the central part of the scene. In the Moses
story, the narrative continues with God's call to Moses (Exod 3:9-12)
and the presentation to Moses of symbols for his authority, for God's
presence with him, or for both. Exod 3:14-16 focuses on the name for
God as a promise for presence. 3: l 7-22 carries the promise for posses
sion of the land with the despoiling. 4: l -9 then introduces the signs.
Moses' rod will turn into a serpent. And that sign leads to the leprous
hand healed by the presence of God. And that sign leads to the water
that turns to blood. The principal point, however, is that closely associ
ated with the theophany marked by the call to remove his shoes because
the ground was holy is the note about the rod that becomes a serpent.
The theophany leads to the symbol that characterizes Mosaic leadership.
The fragment for the Joshua tradition is, however, apparently incom
plete. 5:15 reports that the commander of the Lord's army told Joshua
to remove his shoe since the place where Joshua was standing was holy
ground. Then the last line of the chapter reports that Joshua obeyed the
instructions. And with that word, the fragment appears to break off.
The scene anticipates something more, some sign that God would be
with Joshua, some report that God would give Joshua a sign of his
authority. Perhaps the reference to "the Lord's army" in v. 14, 5ar-~eba-
0adi5nay, contains an allusion to the ark.7 Is it not possible that the
allusion implies that the mysterious man, the captain of the ark of the
Lord, ordains Joshua to stand in that position, the captain of the ark of
the Lord? But the fragment breaks off. The mark of Joshua's leadership
does not appear explicitly in the scene. Instead, Josh 6: l begins a new
story with a syntactical mark that the pericope begins in 6: I. Rather
than the consecutive pattern of narrative that would mark continuation
7. Von Rad (1966, p. 123) refers in this conclusion to Kautsch. For an evaluation of
the term 'aron, "ark" in its various combinations, see Seow (1984).